TNAG-0247-FCO40-283-Exchange-of-newsletters-between-Foreign-and-Commonwealth-Off-1970 — Page 48

in fact that in the House of Commons, Dr. Davies

made no further use of them. To cut a long story short a very unconvincing defence was put up for

Gychication A the measure to

Abelmi 4 of dependent territories while

thel"

Mr.Royle made a good deal of useful play on the

well known Hong Kong grievances that EFTA countries are better treated by HMG than the dependent territories for which she has or ought to

or ought to have, a

special responsibility. Incidentally, in the meantime, there had been received by Lord Shepherd three letters of complaint from the Hong Kong Association, the Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank and John D.Hutchison Ltd. All of these were to same broad effect, that HMG was unsympathetic to the interests of Hong Kong, and all raked up the old grievances you know so well, such as the Tunnel, carton textile tariffs, the airport, etc.

ለ

5. The best attempt possible was made in the

to corect the atuation

House of Lords and when you get your Hansard, Vol.307, No.30, you will find in column 315 the relevant paragraph of Lord Delacourt-Smith's speech. The best arguments we can use, if this matter comes up, is simply to say that the purpose of the Bill was to make sure that when an invest-

ment grant was made, it would be for the benefit of the U.K.balance of payments. But for our Treaty obligations to EFTA and the Irish Republic, we should have allowed no exceptions at all to the necessary balance of payments tests. But we were legally advised that we had to. It remains to say that if a Hong Kong shipbuilder can pass the balance of payments tests then he will get a grant and if he cannot, he should not. We are able to say that the British owners who have been in the habit of having ships built or converted in Hong Kong should have little difficulty in passing the test and getting the grant.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN